SANDERS 2020 is seriously dangerous <3

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Re: SANDERS 2020 is seriously dangerous <3

Postby JackRiddler » Sun Sep 15, 2019 9:59 pm

Spontaneous FB comment when I posted the linked article. Thanks. I'm thinking I should do a podcast or regular blog, already. I mean, the former, if it can actually make any money any more via YT etc.

Revised:

The Daily Spectacle
15 Sep 2019


Disney-ABC's "news" division has devoted 68 minutes to stories about Biden in 2019, compared to seven minutes for Sanders. Bernie's coverage comes in behind future also-rans like Harris and Beto, but at least he is tied with Mayor Pete. (https://freebeacon.com/politics/abc-new ... s-in-2019/)

In other words, the corporate propaganda system of 2019 is still working the same way it did in 2015, 2011, 2007...

Let's compare 2019 to 2015, the year before the first primaries of the interminable 2016 election, which most of you may feel never ended. In 2015 the corporate media conglomerates across outlets and formats devoted an average of three times the "news" coverage to the Trump campaign that they did to Clinton's. Trump also got three times more than all other Republican candidates combined. Sanders got less than 1% of the coverage. Disney-ABC's flagship evening "news" program gave him about 20 seconds during the whole year, compared to 81 minutes for Trump, a 240:1 ratio. (https://www.mediamatters.org/abc/abc-wo ... paign-year)

Remember, this corporate media devotion to the Trump campaign began many months before anyone voted. No one in the universe had ever voted for Trump in an election, whereas Sanders was a sitting senator, then as now. If we give any credence to the opinion polls published over the course of 2015, Trump began what was initially a stunt campaign far behind the other Republican contenders, weak as they were.

His advantage was that he has always been a corporate media product and, of course, a long-time NBC producer (current owner Comcast, formerly General Electric). Trump's PR activity over decades, including fourteen seasons as the producer and star of NBC The Apprentice, had established him as a kind of televised ideal of the billionaire "businessman," whether or not he was ever actually either. He had gained the image of a consumer-in-chief, an aggressive playboy who lived and sold the good life, the life every American is expected to desire and to achieve in some measure, if they're not a loser. Almost all of you are losers, obviously.

NBC The Apprentice is a theater of macho cruelty glorifying the capitalist boss as an arbitrary blowhard who knows nothing but is always right. As an owner, the Trump character is entitled to act as dictator over his "property," including the disposable human livestock working for him, as long as they are working for him. Like Reality TV in general, it reinforces the idea that all relations are strictly transactional and proceeds from the relative power of individuals. Human livestock should desire to serve their owner, or more generally do all to win the game under whatever rules the show offers. Poor performance leads to deserved exclusion. Good performance can eventually make a contest winner into an owner with the same privileges. In any game or season, there can only be one winner. The owner decides.

Trump parlayed the prominence gained from NBC into a key gig with World Wrestling Entertainment's Wrestlemania event in 2007, another theater of cruelty that spoke to an important and misunderstood demographic. Then he managed to place himself as the main purveyor of the racist myth that Obama was actually foreign-born and therefore not really the president. In 2015, as a candidate, he served up unhinged white supremacy, misogyny as a matter of sport and pleasure, aggressive xenophobia, juvenile bullying and unpredicable jabs directed at all of his targets. He was also promising to build a wall, "lock her up," win a bunch of future wars, "cut the head off ISIS" and "take their oil."

This was great television, according to statements from corporate media executives like Jeff Zucker (former chief of NBC, then chief of CNN) and Les Moonves (then the head of the Viacom network, CBS). Starting with his campaign launch speech, about Mexico sending rapists and drug-dealers to the United States, the networks gave daily, near-continuous coverage to Trump's every move and tweet, including full uninterrupted broadcasts of his campaign appearances. He rose to the top of the polls in the same period.

The abundance of free corporate media airtime made accessible to Trump at his demand, even as it was denied to other politicians, was the most important factor in setting him up to win the Republican nomination, and we should never, ever forget this.

It didn't matter how much of this coverage was "critical." Exposure matters. It's not just the relatively small corporate TV "news" audience who become habituated to the ogre's presence and the the thought of him as president. The corporate media platform bestows legitimacy, or that is how most people treat it, thus making it so. Who, after all, remains in complete control of the so-called Democratic Party "debates" currently running? The corporate media. It's all their show, their formats, their questions, their framing, their stars doing the "moderation."

The right-wing media was not initially responsible for Trump's rise. Back in 2015, Murdoch-FOX mostly opposed Trump and favored the more conventionally right-wing Republicans. The faux "liberal" outlets of MSNBC (Comcast's joint venture with Microsoft) and WarnerMedia's CNN (a kind of long-running covert co-production with the State Department) provided the more important Trump-boosting services, precisely because they have falsely framed themselves as "liberal" and more objective than the right-wing outets. On any given morning Trump was able to call in to the MSNBC Morning Joe program, ramble and say outrageous things, and set the day's "news" agenda of talk about him. The main Comcast network and long-time Trump sponsor, NBC, affected to fire him after the "Mexican rapists" speech. Then they invited him to host an episode of Saturday Night Live.

The U.S. corporate media's fateful and central contribution to Trump's rise was obscured, however, by the subsequent invention of #Russiagate. Even before the election, they had gone all-in on one of the most comprehensive and longest-running disinformation campaigns in their entire sordid history. This three-year effort functioned to deny their responsibility for Trump by deflecting blame on to fictions that revived the Red Scares after 1917 and in the late 1940s in a post-modern, liberal form. It allowed them to play the role of a "Resistance" to Trump, the American icon suddenly re-cast as a foreign agent. The idea that "Russia" had somehow effected Trump's election also diverted blame from the Democratic Party's failings and reinforced the New Cold War paradigms of the military-industrial complex. The main problem with this strategy was that very few people cared, as its tales were remote from the real problems that most people face. The Russia play was enacted within an echo chamber of these three interest groups (corporate media, "intelligence" and DNC) scamming a minority of highly-educated liberals genuinely appalled by Trump who looked for salvation to Mueller, a retired official from the Bush-era political police and former co-conspirator in the WMD plot of 2002.

Trump the American oligarch and money launderer was mired in corrupt dealings going back decades. He was committing atrocities and pursuing a course toward fascism in office, but the journalists and investigators pursuing #Russiagate allegations sought instead to link him to an endless series of things that did not actually happen and were not consequential if they did, all the while screaming treason. This ultimately delivered the presumably unintended but fully predictable result of strengthening the Trump regime in office. After the co-creation of Trump the "billionaire businessman" and Trump the serious politician worthy of maximum amplification, #Russiagate represents a third era of service by the corporate media to the ungrateful bastard who calls them the "enemy of the people."

More generally, the corporate media has shifted blame on to "social media." The latter move has the effect of discrediting their small-fry competitors and encouraging censorship measures. While criticism of social media tendencies merits its own essay, much of it serves as little more than an alternative form of distribution and promotion for corporate media content, albeit in ways that challenge corporate media revenue streams and conceptions of "intellectual property." Internet platforms allow too many purveyors to report news or mouth off as they please, and do it for free, even earn some cash if they are allowed to monetize their views.

In a less focused reprise of 2015, this year the corporate media have conducted a similar diversion of the attention economy toward the Biden campaign (and to a set of other "centrist" alternatives), contributing to an environment in which Biden's nomination is supposed to seem as inevitable as Clinton's was. At least, that was the case until a few days ago. Biden seems anything but inevitable today, since incidentally he appears to be undergoing a rapid and public mental decline. (I find this painful and poignant to watch and take no pleasure in it, notwithstanding everything odious about the man otherwise.)

Was this guy really supposed to be inevitable? Biden has run for the Democratic presidential nomination on three earlier occasions. He won one delegate in 1984, two in 1988, and zero in 2008 on a total of 81,000 votes. It's not hard to figure out why he is unpopular with Democratic voters. He has the speaking style of Bill O'Reilly and, for the most part, very right-wing politics. Known as the senator from Mastercard, he is responsible for the Anita Hill roasting and the 2005 law that heavily restricted bankruptcy. Of course, he voted in favor of the 2003 war of aggression on the people of Iraq and many other legislative atrocities of the Bush era. His muddled debate talk, blaming problems with the educational system on poor black parenting, fits into a lifetime of outbursts in that vein.

In the 2016 Democratic primaries, Sanders first faced a near-total blackout from the corporate media throughout 2015. Then, once he broke through into a two-person race with Clinton, he was subjected to vicious petty assaults and daily smears from both the corporate media and the Democratic Party establishment. State-level party machines rigged voting procedures and delegate counts and the central Party apparatus literally relied on loans from the Clinton campaign to pay the electric bill. With no corporate money, the Sanders campaign broke small-donor fundraising records, received 13 million votes according to the official tallies, and won 22 state contests and nearly half of the legitimate (non-super) delegates.

And this was entirely because of the message: single-payer health care, a pro-worker platform cutting across racial divides, challenges to oligarchy, wealth inequality, and perpetual war, among many other positive, future-oriented policies that especially caught fire among the young. Sanders' success was the proof that content, though suppressed, still matters. He got the votes because of what he supported as a policy program, not who he is (although he's kind of a mensch, which makes him outstanding in the low-standard environment of electoral politics). This year Sanders once again has a record number of small donors and volunteers and a huge set of organizations backing him, and is drawing tens of thousands to his rallies. But Biden's supposed to be the juggernaut!
We meet at the borders of our being, we dream something of each others reality. - Harvey of R.I.

To Justice my maker from on high did incline:
I am by virtue of its might divine,
The highest Wisdom and the first Love.

TopSecret WallSt. Iraq & more
User avatar
JackRiddler
 
Posts: 15252
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:59 pm
Location: New York City
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: SANDERS 2020 is seriously dangerous <3

Postby Elvis » Mon Sep 16, 2019 4:22 pm

Great essay and important points on Sanders, Jack. This from 2016:

March 8, 2016
Washington Post Ran 16 Negative Stories on Bernie Sanders in 16 Hours
https://fair.org/home/washington-post-r ... -16-hours/


I've mentioned that I've heard a number of Democratic voters say "Bernie had his chance in 2016!!"

Never have I heard, "Clinton had her chance in 2008!!" or "Biden had his chance in 1984, 1988, and 2008!!"

So many disqualifications apply only to Sanders.


JackRiddler wrote:In the 2016 Democratic primaries, Sanders first faced a near-total blackout from the corporate media throughout 2015. Then, once he broke through into a two-person race with Clinton, he was subjected to vicious petty assaults and daily smears from both the corporate media and the Democratic Party establishment. State-level party machines rigged voting procedures and delegate counts and the central Party apparatus literally relied on loans from the Clinton campaign to pay the electric bill. With no corporate money, the Sanders campaign broke small-donor fundraising records, received 13 million votes according to the official tallies, and won 22 state contests and nearly half of the legitimate (non-super) delegates.

And this was entirely because of the message: single-payer health care, a pro-worker platform cutting across racial divides, challenges to oligarchy, wealth inequality, and perpetual war, among many other positive, future-oriented policies that especially caught fire among the young. Sanders' success was the proof that content, though suppressed, still matters. He got the votes because of what he supported as a policy program, not who he is (although he's kind of a mensch, which makes him outstanding in the low-standard environment of electoral politics). This year Sanders once again has a record number of small donors and volunteers and a huge set of organizations backing him, and is drawing tens of thousands to his rallies. But Biden's supposed to be the juggernaut!
"Frankly, I don't think it's a good idea but the sums proposed are enormous."
User avatar
Elvis
 
Posts: 6651
Joined: Fri Apr 11, 2008 7:24 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: SANDERS 2020 is seriously dangerous <3

Postby Grizzly » Mon Sep 16, 2019 4:51 pm

If Barthes can forgive me, “What the public wants is the image of passion Justice, not passion Justice itself.”
User avatar
Grizzly
 
Posts: 3068
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2011 4:15 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: SANDERS 2020 is seriously dangerous <3

Postby stickdog99 » Mon Sep 16, 2019 6:42 pm



LOL. It's far "too radical" to give workers any say in the workplace decisions that most impact them.
stickdog99
 
Posts: 3794
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2005 5:42 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: SANDERS 2020 is seriously dangerous <3

Postby RocketMan » Tue Sep 17, 2019 4:56 am

No one has still cogently explained to me why, if one supports Bernie's policies, one should still vote for Elizabeth Warren...
-I don't like hoodlums.
-That's just a word, Marlowe. We have that kind of world. Two wars gave it to us and we are going to keep it.
User avatar
RocketMan
 
Posts: 2763
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2008 7:02 am
Location: By the rivers dark
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: SANDERS 2020 is seriously dangerous <3

Postby liminalOyster » Tue Sep 17, 2019 11:40 am

RocketMan » Tue Sep 17, 2019 4:56 am wrote:No one has still cogently explained to me why, if one supports Bernie's policies, one should still vote for Elizabeth Warren...


Speaking of.....

Elizabeth Warren just won an endorsement that’s making Bernie Sanders’s world really mad
The Working Families Party backed Sanders in 2016. This time around, it’s supporting Warren.

By Emily Stewart Sep 16, 2019, 2:40pm EDT

A progressive political group that backed Bernie Sanders in 2016 is backing Elizabeth Warren this time around.

On Monday, the Working Families Party, a grassroots political group, announced that it would back Warren in the 2020 Democratic presidential primary. After a three-month decision process, Warren got 60 percent of WFP’s vote and Sanders garnered 35 percent. Half of those votes are determined by WFP leaders and the other half by its members.

This is a big deal for Warren: WFP has local branches and works closely with unions, activists, and organizations across the country. It has real connections and resources that will be valuable to the Massachusetts Democrat’s campaign.

Somewhat understandably, then, the endorsement has not been well met by Sanders’s supporters, who view it as a betrayal of his past work with the party. In 2016, Sanders sent an email to his New York supporters urging them to vote for Hillary Clinton on the Working Families Party line on their ballots. In the same email, he described WFP as “the closest thing there is to a political party that believes in my vision of democratic socialism.”

WFP appears to have anticipated the potential blowback. In a press release announcing the decision, WFP national director Maurice Mitchell emphasized that people are “lucky to have two strong progressive candidates leading in the race.” Mitchell continued, “Senator Warren and Senator Sanders have both shaped the ideological terrain on which this campaign is being waged. They have proven an effective team on debate stages and in the polls, and we hope that partnership continues. We’re proud to call both of them allies in the fight for a more just America.”

Nelini Stamp, director of strategy and partnerships at WFP, told me the decision process “wasn’t easy” for the party’s members, but many of them are really excited about Warren.

“She’s got a record on housing, fighting the big banks, creating the CFPB, having accountability, having people actually attack her for her leadership in that, and I think that means something to people,” she said. “We care about getting in early and organizing for what our members and institutions decided as a whole … and they decided to endorse Elizabeth Warren.”

Sanders campaign manager Faiz Shakir in a statement to Vox also tried to turn down the temperature around the endorsement. “The Bernie Sanders campaign is built from the support of millions of working people across the country, with our leading donors being Walmart workers, teachers, and nurses,” he said. “We look forward to working with the Working Families Party and other allies to defeat Donald Trump. Together, we’ll build a movement across the country to transform our economy to finally work for the working class of this country.”

Warren thanked the party for its endorsement on Twitter. She also tweeted a video of herself quietly celebrating on a train.


Elizabeth Warren
@ewarren
What cheering in the Quiet Car looks like. Thanks @WorkingFamilies!

Embedded video
33.5K
11:52 AM - Sep 16, 2019
Twitter Ads info and privacy
4,424 people are talking about this


The Bernie backlash
Sanders supporters and some vocal figures on the left have, unsurprisingly, been less than pleased with WFP’s endorsement.

Bhaskar Sunkara, founder of socialist magazine Jacobin, in a tweet said the move was “baffling.” He added, “Bernie is the national manifestation of WFP’s politics. The fact that WFP doesn’t recognize that reflects how much it has strayed.”


Bhaskar Sunkara
@sunraysunray
The @WorkingFamilies has changed New York politics fundamentally and for the better but their decision to endorse Warren is baffling.

Bernie is the national manifestation of the WFP’s politics. The fact that the WFP doesn’t recognize that reflects how much it has strayed.

987
10:42 AM - Sep 16, 2019
Twitter Ads info and privacy
195 people are talking about this
Others echoed similar sentiments.



Micah Uetricht
@micahuetricht
The Working Families Party’s endorsement of Elizabeth Warren is a real shame.

2,866
10:30 AM - Sep 16, 2019
Twitter Ads info and privacy
442 people are talking about this


Eoin Higgins
@EoinHiggins_
WFP solely exists to promote the Democratic Party no matter what. They were never going to endorse Sanders. No point getting upset over it.

242
10:34 AM - Sep 16, 2019
Twitter Ads info and privacy
42 people are talking about this


gabrielwinant
@gabrielwinant
Just another episode in the generations-long drift of labor parties away from the working class!

187
10:24 AM - Sep 16, 2019
Twitter Ads info and privacy
28 people are talking about this


This isn’t first time WFP has ignited some anger with its endorsements — and misfired in the eyes of some progressives. Its state party voted to endorse New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo over Fordham law professor and progressive firebrand Zephyr Teachout in 2014. And in 2018, WFP backed incumbent Joe Crowley over Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez in their primary.

Stamp brushed aside criticism from those pointing that out. “There is something wrong when people are comparing Joe Crowley to Elizabeth Warren,” she said.

Beyond Warren and Sanders, the other candidates under consideration for endorsement were Julián Castro, Cory Booker, and Bill de Blasio. WFP dropped Kamala Harris from the mix in August after her campaign said she would skip a Q&A session.

WFP employs a ranked-choice voting system for endorsements, meaning people rank their preferences from first to last. Vote share is divided 50-50 between WFP’s national committee and WFP members and grassroots supporters. The party doesn’t release separate tallies, meaning we don’t know if there’s a big schism between WFP’s leaders’ preference and its membership base. There have been calls for WFP to publicize how the vote shook out, but they’re saying no.

“People are going to be angry that the candidate they wanted to see get the nod didn’t. We understand why people are angry,” Stamp said.

The 2020 race is starting to heat up, and it shows

In an interview with the New York Times, Mitchell emphasized that making an endorsement decision right now isn’t just about Warren, Sanders, or whatever candidate the group is going to back — it’s also about organizing against the current frontrunner, Joe Biden. He’s encouraging other progressive groups to get off the sidelines, pick a candidate, and start pushing back against the former vice president as well.

“If our focus is on victory, we can’t be delusional about it,” he told the Times. “You don’t defeat the moderate wing of Democrats through thought pieces or pithy tweets, you defeat their politics through organizing.”

As the Times notes, coveted endorsements from unions such as the American Federation of Teachers and the Service Employees Union haven’t yet come through. Sanders did pick up an endorsement from the United Electrical, Radio, and Machine Workers of America.

Earlier this year, Democratic Socialists of America endorsed Sanders. As with this scenario, the move was not without controversy: Some of DSA’s members had asked the group’s leadership to withhold its endorsement over the Vermont senator’s stance on reparations. (The independent Vermont senator has declined to back reparations for the descendants of the enslaved in the United States, arguing that broader anti-poverty programs will help address inequality and that it’s not clear what the term “reparations” means.) DSA’s members had already voted 76 percent to 24 percent to endorse Sanders, and the organization’s leaders went ahead.

Thus far in the 2020 primary, Warren and Sanders, who are longtime allies, have avoided confrontation with one another. They have remained focused on their more moderate opponent, Biden, and have worked in tandem to push forward a progressive message on the campaign trail. But as the calendar accelerates and primary season approaches, the stakes are beginning to feel higher. Controversies like this one are going to become the norm, rather than an aberration.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics ... eth-warren
"It's not rocket surgery." - Elvis
User avatar
liminalOyster
 
Posts: 1621
Joined: Thu May 05, 2016 10:28 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: SANDERS 2020 is seriously dangerous <3

Postby JackRiddler » Tue Sep 17, 2019 1:16 pm

liminalOyster » Tue Sep 17, 2019 10:40 am wrote:
Vox under a suspect headline falsely wrote:
WFP employs a ranked-choice voting system for endorsements, meaning people rank their preferences from first to last. Vote share is divided 50-50 between WFP’s national committee and WFP members and grassroots supporters. The party doesn’t release separate tallies, meaning we don’t know if there’s a big schism between WFP’s leaders’ preference and its membership base. There have been calls for WFP to publicize how the vote shook out, but they’re saying no.


No, WFP in the past has released separate tallies, and did not do so now. So Vox is full of shit.

Ultimately, Mr. Sanders won 87 percent of the votes in the online poll, according to two party officials.

https://www.nytimes.com/politics/first- ... president/


As the December 2015 story from the Times tells, a bunch of WFP leaders opposed opening a membership vote on the presidential endorsement and were angry about the result. "Leadership" of unions like SEIU had already clashed with WFP for not being enough in favor of Cuomo, and then even endorsing his opponent in the 2018 election, Cynthia Nixon. (It's going to be pretty gross watching the union leaderships go against the most pro-labor platform by a leading candidate ever.)

Vox is also full of shit for the headline, which obscures the actual story behind a trivialization of Sanders supporters' justified protests, ascribing these to personal "anger" or extremist petulance.

The WFP leadership numbers 27, the membership is in the thousands. In other words, unlike the membership who vote individually online, it is conceivable the leadership (after a meeting) could have gone unanimously for one candidate. If so, that would account for 50 points out of the "61%" that Warren got. In this extreme but not impossible case, it could have been 70% for Sanders and 22% for Warren among the members, and the result would still be "61%".

Not releasing the separate tallies, as they had in the past (contra Vox) to show that the leadership and membership were in agreement, indicates that the leadership is practicing some level of deception on the members. It is extremely unlikely that the membership vote was not split and very likely it favored Sanders, whether close or not.

In every case, giving that number as a percentage rather than a point score under a tiered voting system is severe statistical malpractice. It's amazing how one little % sign can lie so much.

Anyway, fuck WFP. Basically a device for New Yorkers to vote for a Democrat without puking. Yes, I use the WFP line if I feel I must vote for the Democrat. No need to bother any more.

They are exposing themselves to a massive risk if the tallies are revealed, which the probability of which I estimate at higher than 61 percent.

.
We meet at the borders of our being, we dream something of each others reality. - Harvey of R.I.

To Justice my maker from on high did incline:
I am by virtue of its might divine,
The highest Wisdom and the first Love.

TopSecret WallSt. Iraq & more
User avatar
JackRiddler
 
Posts: 15252
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:59 pm
Location: New York City
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: SANDERS 2020 is seriously dangerous <3

Postby JackRiddler » Tue Sep 17, 2019 1:55 pm

.

Even better, here is the WFP's own press release announcing the Sanders endorsement in Dec. 2015, in which they give extremely precise figures:

The announcement followed a Working Families Party membership vote. An overwhelming super-majority of 87.4% of Working Families Party members voted for Senator Sanders, compared to 11.5% for Secretary Hillary Clinton and 1.1% for former Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley. The final endorsement decision was dependent on both the membership vote and the votes of the WFP’s national advisory board, which includes representatives from all the WFP’s state organizations. The Working Families Party’s endorsement will bring Senator Sanders’ campaign the support of the party’s activist base and skilled operatives.


https://workingfamilies.org/2015/12/wor ... president/

The next line, hilariously: "The Working Families Party is a progressive party that fights for the 99% — and wins."

Obviously, again, Vox is full of shit (or just not bothering to investigate) when they accept WFP's word that they don't release the separate figures, and the WFP leaders are just lying.

May as well archive the full text lest they scrub it:


Working Families Party Announces Endorsement for Bernie Sanders for President

December 8, 2015

WFP for Bernie

Today, the Working Families Party announced its endorsement for Senator Bernie Sanders in the Democratic Primary for President.The announcement marks the first-ever national endorsement for the Working Families Party.

Working Families Party National Director Dan Cantor said: “We want to live in a nation that allows all people to live a decent life, no matter what is in their parents’ bank account or who is in their family tree. But the super-rich have used their economic muscle to buy political muscle, and unless you’re one of them, what you think government should do basically doesn’t count. That’s why we’re standing with Bernie Sanders to build the political revolution and make our nation into one where every family can thrive.”

Lindsay Farrell, Executive Director of Connecticut Working Families said: “Bernie Sanders is giving voice to a problem that Working Families has been fighting for more than 10 years: our economy is not working for too many families. While corporations and the wealthy elites get richer and more powerful, the rest of us are working longer and harder just to support our families. Bernie Sanders shares our commitment to building a fair economy and more representative government, and that is why we are standing with him.”

“I’m proud that Working Families is endorsing Bernie Sanders,” said Connecticut Working Families Board Member Ana María Rivera-Forastieri. “He is speaking about issues that are affecting millions of families across the United States. From economic inequality to the need to reform our racist and unjust immigration system, he is the candidate seeking a true political revolution.”

The announcement followed a Working Families Party membership vote. An overwhelming super-majority of 87.4% of Working Families Party members voted for Senator Sanders, compared to 11.5% for Secretary Hillary Clinton and 1.1% for former Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley. The final endorsement decision was dependent on both the membership vote and the votes of the WFP’s national advisory board, which includes representatives from all the WFP’s state organizations. The Working Families Party’s endorsement will bring Senator Sanders’ campaign the support of the party’s activist base and skilled operatives.

The Working Families Party is a progressive party that fights for the 99% — and wins. With chapters in ten states and a supporter-base that spans the nation, the Working Families Party has won public policies that make a difference in the lives of working families, from paid sick days laws and minimum wage increases to reforms to criminal justice laws and policing practices to wins on student debt and environmental protection. The WFP’s progressive candidates pipeline is recruiting, training and electing the next generation of progressive leaders.

2015 has been a big year for the Working Families Party. In Chicago, United Working Families backed Jesus “Chuy” Garcia for Mayor and held Mayor Rahm Emanuel to a historic run-off election, and helped elect the largest-ever progressive city council caucus. Working Families Party members won special elections for state legislative seats. Connecticut State Senator Ed Gomes and New York State Assemblymember Diana Richardson became the first two state legislators elected only on the Working Families Party ballot line. In Ferguson, Missouri, WFP helped increase African American turnout in the city’s municipal elections following the killing of Michael Brown. Pennsylvania Working Families successfully backed Philadelphia Mayor-elect Jim Kenney in his competitive Democratic Primary. In November, Elizabeth, New Jersey voters approved a ballot measure guaranteeing paid sick days with 86% of the vote, making Elizabeth the tenth municipal paid sick days victory for New Jersey Working Families; Hartford elected three WFP members to the Hartford City Council and a record 71 out of 111 of the New York WFP’s progressive pipeline candidates were elected to local office around the state. Meanwhile, new Working Families chapters launched this year in Wisconsin and Rhode Island.

We meet at the borders of our being, we dream something of each others reality. - Harvey of R.I.

To Justice my maker from on high did incline:
I am by virtue of its might divine,
The highest Wisdom and the first Love.

TopSecret WallSt. Iraq & more
User avatar
JackRiddler
 
Posts: 15252
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:59 pm
Location: New York City
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: SANDERS 2020 is seriously dangerous <3

Postby Elvis » Wed Sep 18, 2019 6:34 am

https://twitter.com/NewDay/status/1173916384599822336

The link should have a video segment of Sanders at town halls, including the vet who thought he was covered but owes $140K in medical bills. When Bernie asks how he's going to pay for that, the vet says, "I can't. I'm gonna kill myself."

Another vet has to pay $900 monthly for five pills. Only in America.

"In 2016, Bernie Sanders' campaign was centered around large, raucous rallies," reports CNN's @ryanobles
. "In 2020, Sanders has turned the tables. He is the one listening... His campaign stops have become more personal."


Nice favorable report, here's another CNN cover of the same story, video at link:



https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/14/politics ... index.html

Bernie Sanders shares personal moment with veteran struggling with $139,000 in health care debt
By Annie Grayer and Veronica Stracqualursi, CNN

Updated 7:29 PM ET, Sat September 14, 2019

[. . .] the Vermont senator began his two-day swing in Nevada with a town hall, where people opened up and got intensely personal about their issues with health care.

During the Friday event in Carson City, a Navy veteran named John shared with Sanders that he is $139,000 in debt because his health insurance, Tricare, a program for the military, is no longer accepted.

Sanders listened intently as John, who said he served 20 years in the military, revealed that he has been diagnosed with stage four Huntington's disease, a neurodegenerative disorder.

When asked by Sanders how he is going to pay off his debt, John said, raising his voice, "I can't, I can't, I'm gonna kill myself."

The senator cut him off -- "Hold it. John, stop it. You're not gonna kill yourself. Stop it," Sanders said.

"I can't do this," John said with frustration in his voice. "I have Huntington's disease. Do you know how hard it is? You know, you probably don't, do you? I can't drive. I can barely take care of myself."


"Alright, let's chat later at the end of the meeting, okay?" Sanders said to John.

As promised, Sanders and his wife Jane spoke with John after the campaign event ended.

Sanders shared with CNN that in this conversation with the veteran, he made sure his team got the correct contact information.

"What I wanted to make sure is that I got the correct information because what I did not want to happen is just him talking about his story but not being able to follow up with him," Sanders said.

"He told me he doesn't answer his phone very much because there are bill collectors calling him up every day," Sanders said of what he learned when speaking with the veteran further.

Sanders also shared that his team has already gotten in touch with one of the Nevada senators about this veteran's situation.

"We have already been in contact with one of the Nevada senators. We're going to get in touch with the entire Nevada Congressional delegation to get him the help that he needs," the Vermont senator said.

"We will follow up on Monday," Sanders later added.

"Here is somebody who put his life on the line to defend this country, a veteran, dealing with a terrible, terrible illness, and what was obviously very unsettling is when he used the word suicide," Sanders told CNN when reflecting on his interaction. "That was the most dramatic and painful moment of the whole town meeting," he added.

"This should not be going on in America, not for a veteran, not for any person in this country, and it is beyond comprehension that under the current healthcare system, somewhere like a half a million people go bankrupt every year because of medical bills," Sanders told CNN.

"Clearly we are not doing what we should be doing to make sure that every veteran in this country gets all of the quality healthcare they need when they need it," he said.


If you or a veteran you know needs help, call the Veterans Crisis Line at 1-800-273-TALK (8255), and press 1.


CNN's Sabrina Shulman contributed to this report.
"Frankly, I don't think it's a good idea but the sums proposed are enormous."
User avatar
Elvis
 
Posts: 6651
Joined: Fri Apr 11, 2008 7:24 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: SANDERS 2020 is seriously dangerous <3

Postby Elvis » Thu Sep 19, 2019 9:38 pm

Bernie Sanders hits 1 million donors

09/19/2019 03:30 PM EDT

He is the first candidate to announce reaching that milestone.

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/09/ ... 9CEEamIJio
"Frankly, I don't think it's a good idea but the sums proposed are enormous."
User avatar
Elvis
 
Posts: 6651
Joined: Fri Apr 11, 2008 7:24 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: SANDERS 2020 is seriously dangerous <3

Postby Belligerent Savant » Wed Sep 25, 2019 10:35 am

JackRiddler » Tue Sep 17, 2019 12:55 pm wrote:.

Even better, here is the WFP's own press release announcing the Sanders endorsement in Dec. 2015, in which they give extremely precise figures:

The announcement followed a Working Families Party membership vote. An overwhelming super-majority of 87.4% of Working Families Party members voted for Senator Sanders, compared to 11.5% for Secretary Hillary Clinton and 1.1% for former Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley. The final endorsement decision was dependent on both the membership vote and the votes of the WFP’s national advisory board, which includes representatives from all the WFP’s state organizations. The Working Families Party’s endorsement will bring Senator Sanders’ campaign the support of the party’s activist base and skilled operatives.


https://workingfamilies.org/2015/12/wor ... president/

The next line, hilariously: "The Working Families Party is a progressive party that fights for the 99% — and wins."

Obviously, again, Vox is full of shit (or just not bothering to investigate) when they accept WFP's word that they don't release the separate figures, and the WFP leaders are just lying.

May as well archive the full text lest they scrub it:


Working Families Party Announces Endorsement for Bernie Sanders for President

December 8, 2015

WFP for Bernie

Today, the Working Families Party announced its endorsement for Senator Bernie Sanders in the Democratic Primary for President.The announcement marks the first-ever national endorsement for the Working Families Party.

...



Note:
- According to the Center for Public Integrity, the Warren campaign’s treasurer remains on the board of Demos.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
User avatar
Belligerent Savant
 
Posts: 2659
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2009 11:58 pm
Location: North Atlantic.
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: SANDERS 2020 is seriously dangerous <3

Postby JackRiddler » Mon Sep 30, 2019 3:19 pm

.

In this SNL sketch, Bernie is a walking corpse out to ruin everything in 2020 as he did in 2016. He cannot understand the most basic technologies surrounding him due to his great age and crankines, he does nothing all day, and he wants to burn America to the ground by giving away free everything. There is zero pretense of a depiction, only smear propaganda. Even on Foxnews you will usually not see its hateful likes. Some of the other stuff is actually funny and addresses the real-world characters (the Kamala Harris bits), but no effort is put into scripting jokes about a real Bernie Sanders. It's all hit job. (Scrub to skip to the Larry David bits, you'll see what I mean.) And fuck Larry David!


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lgA0fjztqaQ

Ray Bradbury in Fahrenheit 451 wrote wrote:
“Let's talk politics, to please Guy!"

"Sounds fine," said Mrs. Bowles. "I voted last election, same as everyone, and I laid it on the line for President Noble. I think he's one of the nicest-looking men who ever became president."

"Oh, but the man they ran against him!"

"He wasn't much, was he? Kind of small and homely and he didn't shave too close or comb his hair very well."

"What possessed the 'Outs' to run him? You just don't go running a little short man like that against a tall man. Besides -he mumbled. Half the time I couldn't hear a word he said. And the words I did hear I didn't understand!"

"Fat, too, and didn't dress to hide it. No wonder the landslide was for Winston Noble. Even their names helped. Compare Winston Noble to Hubert Hoag for ten seconds and you can almost figure the results.”

"Damn it," cried Montag, "What do you know about Hoag and Noble?"

"Why they were right in that parlor wall, not six months ago. One of them was always picking his nose. It drove me wild."

"Well, Mr. Montag," said Mrs. Phelps. "Do you want us to vote for a man like that?"
We meet at the borders of our being, we dream something of each others reality. - Harvey of R.I.

To Justice my maker from on high did incline:
I am by virtue of its might divine,
The highest Wisdom and the first Love.

TopSecret WallSt. Iraq & more
User avatar
JackRiddler
 
Posts: 15252
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:59 pm
Location: New York City
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: SANDERS 2020 is seriously dangerous <3

Postby overcoming hope » Tue Oct 01, 2019 5:45 pm

^^^
SNL on Bernie.

Even though I total expect it I was still a little surprised by the hate. It seems like the producers, writers and Larry David really do not like Bernie. I mean for Larry David to participate, it isn't the money, it isn't for exposure, I guess it could just be for fun, but it seems like you really would have to dislike Bernie to book end the performance with "I'm here to ruin everything" and "Lets Burn it all down".

But you know what it really makes me mad that the producers and writers at SNL want to blame Bernie for 'ruining everything', (for I guess the crime of having the nerve to run for office?), when these guys gave Trump a platform and wrote him funny jokes to humanize him and amplify his candidacy for a week during the primaries!

Ugh and as lame and weak as the SNL political stuff is when it's fresh, remember that's as good as it gets because SNL political humor ages like sushi in the sun.
overcoming hope
 
Posts: 467
Joined: Wed Jan 17, 2007 11:32 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: SANDERS 2020 is seriously dangerous <3

Postby Belligerent Savant » Tue Oct 01, 2019 7:39 pm

^^^^^^^^^

None of the above should be a surprise, as they are merely pandering (or otherwise fully subscribing) to the stereotypical NY upper-crust Democrat that cares not for Sanders' policies towards the Average American, but only for furthering their own privileged interests. Larry David is no different.

No hint of Noblesse Oblige around these parts, if there ever was.
User avatar
Belligerent Savant
 
Posts: 2659
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2009 11:58 pm
Location: North Atlantic.
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: SANDERS 2020 is seriously dangerous <3

Postby JackRiddler » Tue Oct 01, 2019 9:58 pm

Belligerent Savant » Tue Oct 01, 2019 6:39 pm wrote:Larry David is no different.


Long career he's made of it. One "Palestinian Chicken" episode cannot make up for it. As one who no doubt thinks he started low and broke in to the top, he shares something with Trump.
We meet at the borders of our being, we dream something of each others reality. - Harvey of R.I.

To Justice my maker from on high did incline:
I am by virtue of its might divine,
The highest Wisdom and the first Love.

TopSecret WallSt. Iraq & more
User avatar
JackRiddler
 
Posts: 15252
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:59 pm
Location: New York City
Blog: View Blog (0)

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 6 guests